2j.docx

SANTOS V PAGUIO A.M. No. MTJ-93-781 November 16, 1993 DAVIDE, JR., J.: FACTS: The complainant is the lawyer for the defendants in Civil Case an action for unlawful detainer with the MTC of Meycauayan, Bulacan where the respondent is the presiding Judge. The complainant alleged that after the answer in the said case was filed and without notice and hearing, the respondent judge rendered a decision in accordance with plaintiff's prayer. RTC rendered the decision void but despite that, the respondent judge amended the decision still in favor of the plaintiff in the said case. Hence, the complainant then prays that the respondent "be removed from office if only to save the integrity of the judiciary. Complainant charges the respondent with gross ignorance of the law and gross incompetence. Upon recommendation, the Office of the Court Administrator affirmed that the dispositive portion rendered was not acceptable as decision. Hence, this petition. ISSUE: WON the respondent judge be administratively liable? HELD: Yes. Respondent Judge is guilty of neglect of duty and the violation of Canons 5 and 31 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. However, it is not therefore correct to say, as the complainant suggested, that the order of the RTC stating that the respondent's amended Decision is "void upon its face" forever bars the respondent from rendering a new or amended decision in the ejectment case. On the other hand, the complainant, is however not free from his acts. The failure to divulge the foregoing facts may have been intended by the complainant to give his complaint a strong prima facie case against the respondent. While he was entitled to adopt certain strategies in his pleadings, he forgot that he owes to this Court absolute candor, fairness and good faith. Complainant should, therefore, be admonished to faithfully adhere to the Code of Professional Responsibility. Complainant is hereby ADMONISHED to be more careful in the drafting of pleadings, always keeping in mind his duty under Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

LIBIT V OLIVA A.C. No. 2837 October 7, 1994 FACTS:

In a civil case Cutingting v Tan, the Honorable Presiding Judge Domingo Panis ordered the Director of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) to conduct an investigation in view of determining the author of the Sheriff's Return which appears to have been falsified and to institute such criminal action. Afterwards, NBI, charged respondents, counsel of Cutingting of falsifying Sheriff's Return of Summons during the hearing of the aforesaid Civil Case thereby impending and/or obstructing the speedy administration and/or dispensation of Justice. Upon referral to the Commission on Bar Discipline of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for investigation, report, and recommendation, the Court finds that respondent Atty. Edelson G. Oliva committed acts of misconduct which warrant the exercise by the Court of its disciplinary powers.

neither the one nor the other. The Court of First Instance of the Province of Cavite, recommended that a disciplinary action be taken against Arayata and that Montoya be exonerated, it having been clearly established that the latter, in ratifying the document, acted in good faith and relied on Arayata's assurance that the old man then with him was really the vendor Arcadio Arayata who ratified all the contents of the instrument.

ISSUE:

Yes. The acts committed by the respondent Arayata relative to the deed of sale and his statements to notary Montoya with regard to said document, constitute malpractice and unprofessional conduct under the provisions of section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, meriting for him a disciplinary action mitigated in this case by the circumstance that he was apparently the heir entitled to the ownership of the land and that the complainant has neither real nor direct interest in the transaction complained of by her. Attorney Eustaquio V. Arayata guilty of malpractice and suspend him from the practice of his profession for 1 month.

WON Atty. Oliva is administratively liable and must be subject to disciplinary action HELD: Yes. Practice of law is not a right but a privilege bestowed by the State on those who show that they possess, and continue to possess, the qualifications required by law. One of these requirements is the observance of honesty and candor. Courts are entitled to expect only complete candor and honesty from the lawyers appearing and pleading before them. It is essential that lawyers bear in mind at all times that their first duty is not to their clients but rather to the courts, that they are above all court officers sworn to assist the courts in rendering justice to all and sundry, and only secondarily are they advocates of the exclusive interests of their clients. In this case, respondent Atty. Edelson Oliva has manifestly violated that part of his oath as a lawyer that he shall not do any falsehood. He has likewise violated Rule 10.01 of the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court nor shall he mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. MONTEREY V ARAYATA 61 Phil 820 Per Rec. Nos. 3527, 3408 August 23, 1935 IMPERIAL, J.: FACTS: Attorney Eustaquio V. Arayata and notary public Tereso Ma. Montoya was charge with falsification in having ratified the deed of sale and having stated that Arcadio Arayata personally appeared before him and confirmed the sale, knowing fully well that said person is already dead and therefore could do

ISSUE: WON Atty. Arayata is administratively liable? HELD:

THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., LTD., EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-NATU V. THE INSULAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO., GR. NO. L-25291 JAN 30 1971 FACTS: The Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd., Employees Association-NATU, FGU Insurance Group Workers & Employees Association-NATU, and Insular Life Building Employees Association-NATU (referred to as the Unions), while still members of the Federation of Free Workers (FFW), entered into separate collective bargaining agreements with the Insular Life Assurance Co., Ltd. and the FGU Insurance Group. Two of the lawyers of the Unions then were Felipe Enaje and Ramon Garcia. Garcia, as such acting president, in a circular issued in his name and signed by him, tried to dissuade the members of the Unions from disaffiliating with the FFW and joining the National Association of Trade Unions (NATU), to no avail. The Unions went on strike and picketed the offices of the Insular Life Building at Plaza Moraga. CIR prosecutor filed a complaint for unfair labor practice against the Companies under Republic Act 875. The complaint specifically charged the Companies with (1) interfering with the members of the Unions in the exercise of their right to concerted action, by sending out individual letters to them urging them to abandon their strike and return to work, with a promise of comfortable cots, free coffee and movies, and

paid overtime, and, subsequently, by warning them that if they did not return to work on or before June 2, 1958, they might be replaced; and (2) discriminating against the members of the Unions as regards readmission to work after the strike on the basis of their union membership and degree of participation in the strike. The Companies denied the allegations. Court of Industrial Relations dismissed the Unions' complaint for lack of merit. Unions filed their motion for reconsideration and their supporting memorandum but was denied by the Court of Industrial Relations en banc. ISSUE: WON there was a violated made in the Canon 10.2 of the Code of Professional Responsibility HELD: Yes. It is the bounden duty of courts, judges and lawyers to reproduce or copy the same word-for-word and punctuation mark-for-punctuation mark. Indeed, there is a salient and salutary reason why they should do this. Only from this Tribunal's decisions and rulings do all other courts, as well as lawyers and litigants, take their bearings. This is because the decisions referred to in article 8 of the Civil Code which reads, "Judicial decisions applying or interpreting the laws or the Constitution shall form a part of the legal system of the Philippines," are only those enunciated by this Court of last resort. Thus, ever present is the danger that if not faithfully and exactly quoted, the decisions and rulings of this Court may lose their proper and correct meaning, to the detriment of other courts, lawyers and the public who may thereby be misled. COBB-PEREZ V LANTIN GR NO L-22320 JULY 29, 1968 FACTS: A civil case was filed by the respondent Ricardo Hermoso against the petitioner Damaso Perez and Gregorio Subong for the recovery of unpaid purchases of leather materials used in his shoemaking business. The defendants and their counsel did nothing despite due notice to them. A judgment was rendered ordering them to pay the said sum. On August 23, 1961, the respondent sheriff of Manila levied upon 3,573 shares of common stock registered in the name of Damaso Perez with the Republic Bank. This led to the series of petitions and motions and other actions filed by the petitioner and caused the resetting of the public sale for 6 times. The petitioners were not able to

present evidence to support their argument on Art 160 of the Civil Code. ISSUE/S: WON the counsel be held liable for abetting the filing of his clients HELD: Yes. The counsel is therefore ordered to pay for the treble costs assessed against the petitioners. We feel compelled to observe that during the protracted litigation below, the petitioners resorted to a series of actions and petitions, at some stages alternatingly, abetted by their counsel, for the sole purpose of thwarting the execution of a simple money judgment which has long become final and executory. Some of the actions were filed, only to be abandoned or withdrawn. The petitioners and their counsel, far from viewing courts as sanctuaries for those who seek justice, have tried to use them to subvert the very ends of justice. PRADO V ACOSTA AC NO.11824 FEBRUARY 6,2018 ASA V CASTILLO 500 SCRA 309 FACTS:

WON Atty. Castillo and Ginger Anne is administratively liable HELD: Yes. Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides that a lawyer owes candor, fairness and good faith to the courts. Rule 10.01 of said Canon specifically commands that a member of the bar shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Rule 10.02 of the same Canon provides that a member of the bar shall not knowingly misquote or misrepresent the contents of a paper or assert as a fact that which has not been proved. And Section 20(d), Rule 138 of the Rules of Court directs that a lawyer must employ such means only as are consistent with truth and honor, and never seek to mislead the judge or any judicial officer by any artifice or false statement of fact or law. Complete candor or honesty is thus expected from lawyers, particularly when they appear and plead before the courts. They have an obligation to the court as well as to the opposing party to make only truthful statements in their pleadings. The burden cast on the judiciary would be intolerable if it could not take at face value what is asserted by counsel. The time that will have to be devoted just to the task of verification of allegations submitted could easily be imagined. BANOGON V ZERNA G. R. No. L-35469 0ctober 9. 1987 154 SCRA 593

In 1996, Atty. Pablito M. Castillo, an associate of the Laurel Law Offices of which Attorneys Leon L. Asa and Jose A. Oliveros are partners, endorsed to the law firm a guardianship case pending before the RTC. Castillo appeared as counsel of record for the therein petitioner, Dr. Salvador H. Laurel, guardian ad litem of the minors Nonan who appear to have inherited a sizeable amount of US dollars. A misunderstanding later occurred between Asa and Castillo as regards their sharing in the attorney’s fees in the guardianship case. In the pleading signed by Castillo, it was alleged that Asa wants to be paid an additional $75,000.00 for his services in providing coffee and opening doors whenever there is a conference at the Laurel Law Offices. Asa and Oliveros filed before IBP an administrative complaint against Castillo and Ginger Anne, for gross violation of the lawyer’s oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility. Upon recommendation, the IBP CBD recommended the dismissal of the case. The Board of Governors of IBP adopted the recommendation. Hence, the present motion for reconsideration.

FACTS:

ISSUE:

HELD:

On February 9, 1926 the Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, rendered a decision of a land dispute in favored of Melchor Zerna (respondent). The decision became final and executory after thirty days. Alter thirty-one years, on March 6, 1957. Banogon filed a motion to amend the decision and followed by a petition for review on Judgment on that same year. After fourteen years. on October 11, 1971 respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition. On December 8, 1971 the petition for review on judgment of the petitioner was dismissed and the motion for reconsideration filed was denied by the court considering the fact that it was beyond the allowable period. Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court. ISSUE WON the petition for review and amendment of judgment will be recognized accepted by the court after thirtyone years of inaction

No. Lawyers have duties and responsibilities to assist in the proper administration of Justice. But in this case, the lawyer violates the duties and responsibilities entrusted to him by filing motion and petition way beyond the scope of allowable period. As officer of the court he or she ought to know by heart their mandated duties and responsibilities. It manifested in this case that the profession was put to shame and creates public distrust. The lawyer must be responsible enough to his or her client in helping especially in claiming his or her client's right. As officer of the court they should exercise properly and correctly the mandates entrusted to them in assisting in the administration of justice, by doing this, in order to uplift the image o the legal profession in the society due to the fact that nowadays legal profession merely perceived as money making profession, in a sense that it misinterpreted the law to the point of distortion in order to achieve their purposes. CANLAS V CA 164 SCRA 160 FACTS: The private respondent owns several parcels of land located in Quezon City for which he is the registered owner. He secured loans from L and R corporations and executed deeds of over the parcels of land for the security of the same. Upon the maturity of said loans, the firm initiated an extrajudicial foreclosure of the properties in question after private respondent failed to pay until maturity. The private respondent filed a complaint for injunction over the said foreclosure and for redemption of the parcels of land. Two years after the filing of the petition, private respondent and Land R corporation entered into a compromise agreement that renders the former to be insured another year for the said properties, included m the stipulations were the attorney's lees amounting 1000. The private respondent however, remained to be turmoil when it came to finances and was apparently unable to pay and secure the attorney's fees, more so the redemption liability. Relief was discussed by petitioner and private respondent executed a document to redeem the parcels of land and to register the same to her name. Allegations were made by the private respondent claiming the parcels of land to his name but without prior notice. The properties were already registered under the petitioner's name. The private respondent calls for a review and for the court to act on the said adverse claim by petitioner on said Certificates for the properties consolidated by the redemption price he paid for said properties. The private respondent filed a suit for the annulment of judgment in the Court of appeals ruled over the same. ISSUE:

WON the petitioner is on solid ground on the reacquisition over the said properties. HELD: No. By Atty-Cantas'own account, “due to tack of paying capacity of respondent Herrera, no financing entity was willing to extend him any loan with which to pay the redemption price of his mortgaged properties and petitioner's P100. 000. 00 attorney's fees awarded in the Compromise Judgments,” a development that should have tempered his demand for his fees. For obvious reasons, he placed his interest over and above those of his client, opposition to his oath to conduct himself as a lawyer with all good fidelity to his clients. The court finds the occasion fit to stress that lawyering is not a money-making venture and lawyers are not merchants, a fundamental standard that has, as a matter of judicial notice, eluded not a few law advocates. The petitioner's efforts partaking of a shakedown-of his own client are not becoming of a lawyer and certainly, do not speak well of his fealty to his oath to-delay no man for money, we are not, however, condoning the private respondent's own shortcomings in condemning Atty. Canlas monetarily, we cannot overlook the fact that the private respondent has not settled his liability. WICKER V ARCANGEL 252 SCRA 445 G.R. No. 112869. January 29, 1996 MENDOZA, J.: FACTS: Kelly Wicker, with his wife Wynee Dieppe and the Tectonics Asia Architects and Engineering Co., brought suit in the Regional Trial Court against the LFS Enterprises, Inc. and others, for the annulment of certain deeds by which a house and lot at Forbes Park, which the plaintiffs claimed they had purchased, was allegedly fraudulently titled in the name of the defendant LFS Enterprises and later sold by the latter to codefendant Jose Poe. The case was formerly presided over by Judge Ignacio Capulong who later was replaced by respondent Judge Paul T. Arcangel. It appears that on November 18, 1993, Wickers counsel, Atty. Orlando A. Rayos, filed a motion seeking the inhibition of respondent judge from the consideration of the case. Allegations were considered to be malicious, derogatory and contemptuous. Subsequently, they were held them guilty of direct contempt. ISSUE: WON the respondent judge erred in holding the petitioners guilty of direct contempt HELD:

No. The allegations are derogatory to the integrity and honor of respondent judge and constitute an unwarranted criticism of the administration of justice in this country. They suggest that lawyers, if they are well connected, can manipulate the assignment of judges to their advantage. The truth is that the assignments of Judges Arcangel and Capulong were made by this Court, by virtue of Administrative Order, precisely in the interest of an efficient administration of justice and pursuant to Sec. 5 (3), Art. VIII of the Constitution. the Court believes that consistent with the rule that the power to cite for contempt must be exercised for preservative rather than vindictive principle we think that the jail sentence on petitioners may be dispensed with while vindicating the dignity of the court. In the case of petitioner Kelly Wicker there is greater reason for doing so considering that the particularly offending allegations in the motion for inhibition do not appear to have come from him but were additions made by Atty. Rayos. In addition, Wicker is advanced in years (80) and in failing health (suffering from angina), a fact Judge Arcangel does not dispute. Wicker may have indeed been the recipient of such a remark although he could not point a court employee who was the source of the same. At least he had the grace to admit his mistake both as to the source and truth of said information.